Planned - Socialism has no future on Chiron?

[Tokamak]

Planned economies, just like in real life, are excellent for small societies, and fail miserably when attempted on a huge scale.

I almost always go Planned at the beginning of the game. I can hardly notice the inefficiency at that point, and the extra expansion has implications for the far future. Planned becomes less and less viable as time goes on for two reasons:

1) The efficincy begins to hit when you start getting big. After a while you could be losing about 1/3 of your energy to inefficiency, not a good thing.

2) There is an oppurtunity cost for running Planned over Market. Once your empire is big enough to sustain a healhy economy, I recommend going Market. I usually make the switch right after building the Planetary Energy Grids. That seems to be about the right time for it.


Personally, I've never used Planned to force a pop-boom, except when playing as Aki or Sven. I find that it is more economical to simply run Democracy +Golden Age +Creches. People seem to think that diverting 20% for your energy into psych to get the Golden Age is a big deal, but it really isn't. The +1 economy bonus that Golden Ages greatly defray the costs, and if your empire is big enough, you'll actually be getting more money than when you weren't paying for psych! Compare this to the hamstringing effect Planned has on large economies, and it's just no contest, especially when you take Market into consideration.

Planned is one of those SE choices that empires eventually outgrow (I consider Wealth to be the other one, which is usually replaced by Knowledge arounf the mid game). The growth bonus can be gotten from other sources, and the industry bonus is a big deal when you're hauling in several hundered ec's a turn.

In fact, I strongly suggest that you edit your alphax.txt so that the Progenitors don't have Planned as an aggenda anymore. Otherwise, they just suck in the mid-game.

On the other hand, if you are running the all specialist approach, Planned is easily the best peacetime economy you can run.

[Avenoct]

Just a quick note and question:

Ethemind: The Ecodamage article of Ned's (and Blake's and Fitz's) is Top-Ed in the strategy section, or rather, a link to it has a home there. Its a great and straightforward article.

Question: Planned for all-specialist peacetime economy? Explain? I've not really followed the details well, but that sounds interesting...I never make it to ALL specialists, but end up with about half my bases as all-specialists...perhaps inefficient.

-Smack

[EtheMind]

Planned economies, just like in real life, are excellent for small societies, and fail miserably when attempted on a huge scale.

I think you have a point in that. But I guess it's a question of opinion to some degree. I'd say running Planned economies succesfully would require high tech and very developed command structure. Planned Economy is very complex system and if you go down and slain the upper class of society and replace it with soviets(workers from middle and lower classes) and think you can run Economics which require the complete integration of State and Economy into one superorganism...think again. That was just one of the errors of socialists.

[Avenoct]

Ah goodie, we return to the topic of socialism! Well, as a native of the USA, I've no experience really with socialism on a nation-scale, though I've worked for organisations that are 'socialist' on a small scale. I have a question for ye Europeans: Do you view 'Modern Socialism' as Socialism, or something else? I've never quite understood where socialism ends and communism begins, in the modern definition. Isn't it possible to have a democratic socialist state? Would you consider that 'Planned Economics?'

When I think of some of the political parties of France or Denmark (am woefully out of touch with Europolitics though), I think 'Ah, now there is real socialism!'. Governments that tax heavily but support the populace evenly. This kind of idea is really frowned upon in the USA. I suppose it's our idea of freedom. Personally, I'd rather go the way of Denmark and have 50% income tax in exchange for very little poverty, free university, great medical care, etc.. but, I believe there are more U.S. citizens along the 'Libertarian' bent than the socialist one. They believe in totally minimizing government as much as possible. To me, that's silly. True, you get rid of buearocracy, but at the cost of community. I think it's completely naive. The only reason people can afford to consider government a waste is by their affluence, won, and provided by that government. How embarrasing.

-Smack

[Tokamak]

Originally posted by Smack
Question: Planned for all-specialist peacetime economy? Explain? I've not really followed the details well, but that sounds interesting...I never make it to ALL specialists, but end up with about half my bases as all-specialists...perhaps inefficient.

-Smack

I only have limited experience with the all specialist approach, but I find the idea intriguing. There's a thread somewhere in the archives that details the approach.

Basically, the idea is to crawl in enough nutrients so that every citizen can be either an engineer or a thinker. This has several advantages...

1) You gain significantly more lab and economy points each turn, even when taking into account the loss of commerce. I didn't beleive it at first either, but it's true.

2) Specialists are not affected by inefficiency. They always produce their full alloment of points, regardless of how far away they are from HQ.

3) Drones are a complete and total non-issue with this approach. You will not need rec commons, and you will not pay anything for psych.


The disadvantages...

1) You are extremely reliant on your crawlers. If they die, so does the base.

2) Mineral output will be weak. This can be offset by using crawlers, but see disadvantage #1

3) Setting this up is a major PIA

Anyways, you can see why Planned is the best economy with this approach. Planned gives you +2 growth and +1 Industry. Compare it to ...

Free Market. Since you have no workers, the +2 economy is almost worthless. The Planet penalty makes you vulnerable to native attacks. At least the police penalty is meaningless.

Green: The efficiency bonus is immaterail here. The Planet bonus might be useful if you are being pestered bu Dee or Cha. The growth hit makes pop-booms impossible.


I haven't tried going for the all specialist empire yet, though I'll give it a try sometime soon. I have found that the idea works well on a smaller scale. When running Market and creating my air force, I set up one all specialist base somewhere in the core of my empire and re-home all of my jets there (ugrding them with clean reactors, of course). No more pacifism, and I didn't have to use any punishment spheres!

This is also a good approach for bases that are far away from your headquarters.

[Ned]

Smack, Socialism? In a word: Bureaucracy. The bureaucrat decides everything from whether you get a benefit to the price of tea. Just as in the game, the price of Socialism is inefficiency. However, it does permit the goverment to focus society on one common goal.

Students of whether Socialism ultimately is better for mankind ought to study the late Roman Empire. In many ways the collapse of that great empire was caused by its high cost welfare state.

Regardless, Planned in the game is an excellent SE choice for small empires. Some say that this means that Planned is not good late in the game. However, it is if you deliberately keep your empire within the b-warning limits, for example, by giving captured bases back your submissives.

Ned

[Basil]

Hmm, you guys go to FM much later than I do. With Morgan, (to cite an extreme example) I go to FM as soon as I have the tech and maybe a couple of rec commons. Of course, he can't run Planned. In theory I'd do the same with Lal, but I haven't tested that yet. I don't wait for restriction-lifting with any market-capable faction, since the biggest percentage advantage is in the very early game when you are using unterraformed land (1 energy instead of 0 is a very large % improvement ), and when you are using forests (2 energy instead of 1 for 100%). If you're already getting 2 or 3 energy from the average square an additional 1 matters much less.

I've come to see Planned as serving three or four purposes:
- a very short preliminary state to FM.
- an economic SE for factions that can't run FM. These factions (Gaians, Hive, Cult) have advantages that compensate for their inability to run Market.
- a wartime SE, not just to prevent drones from absent military units, but also to allow police units in recently conquered bases. In this case, not being able to run FM is one of the costs of the war.
- I can see how Planned would be good for a pure-specialist colony, but I've never done this myself.

I don't like the way FM is so much better than Planned in peacetime. Combined with the advantages of Democracy for builders, this means that Democracy/FM is clearly (IMHO ) the best peacetime SE choice for 10 of the factions through most of the game, which is, IMHO, boring. So one of my goals in my variants is to balance this a bit. Easier said than done.

Edit: incomplete sentence finished

[Avenoct]

Tokamak:

Anyways, you can see why Planned is the best economy with this approach. Planned gives you +2 growth and +1 Industry. Compare it to ...

Free Market. Since you have no workers, the +2 economy is almost worthless. The Planet penalty makes you vulnerable to native attacks. At least the police penalty is meaningless.

Green: The efficiency bonus is immaterail here. The Planet bonus might be useful if you are being pestered bu Dee or Cha. The growth hit makes pop-booms impossible.

Thanks Tokamak, I do remember that it's pretty painful to be running FM and then put a crawler on that nice forest just b/c you need an all-specialist base. The loss of energy using crawlers (as you at least need some for food and mins) under FM is a major pain. It's in that 50/50, all-specialist bases/non-specialist bases where this becomes debatable, as well as the Green option. I'm seeing now that it's probably best to go with one or two specialst bases under FM or Green or whatnot, or go all the way and run Planned with (probably fewer) all-specialist bases. As it's fairly enjoyable to run a smaller empire anyways, I'm going to try this in my next game (or maybe my current PBEM).

Ned:

Students of whether Socialism ultimately is better for mankind ought to study the late Roman Empire. In many ways the collapse of that great empire was caused by its high cost welfare state.

Yeah, they were actually too liberal a state (esp. in religion) to survive, but I'd have to say it was Diocletian and later, Constantine who really started the fall by moving the capital/instituting more than one caesar/instituting more than one capital. Socialism is probably one ideal I'll hold onto, practical or not.

Basil, I play Morgan the same way, but with the others, FM isn't as early for me, for one reason or another.

-Smack

[EtheMind]

Do you view 'Modern Socialism' as Socialism, or something else? I've never quite understood where socialism ends and communism begins, in the modern definition. Isn't it possible to have a democratic socialist state? Would you consider that 'Planned Economics?'

Socialism sunk bad after USSR was dissolved. But it's actually rising up quite impressively which is just very understandable. In very different form though. "Modern" Socialists absolutely condemn Soviet Party Dictatorship. They have more intrest towards Democracy or even Anarchy. Who do you think those protesters outside G7 conventions are? Socialists and Environmentalists.

During the last decades of USSR. The party elite got completely separated from the people, who were suppose to run the society at the first place. They lived in luxury and ignorance just as like the western upper class. It was very interesting scheme, as, in socialism you're suppose to have very society integrated equal goverment. For example there were different shops and apartments for people, the army, and for the party in USSR. And guess which of them sold some cheap imported vegetables and which of them had fashion by Giorgio Armani. Soviet Union was one of the most strict class societies in the history, and that's not how it was suppose to go.

In a classical sense Communism is the final stage of development in the history of societies. Classes seize to exist, and so does the goverment/police institution the purpose of which was to support the upper class. Socialism is the phase before the Communism.

I think 'Ah, now there is real socialism!'. Governments that tax heavily but support the populace evenly.

Well, at least, they tax heavily, I can tell you that As a citizen of former semi-market economy. NOTE:Finland was not, I repeat NOT, the part of Socialist Block. We simply integrated these economies and happened to achieve the place among the top welfare nations within a few decades...hups!
But, rest assured, we are going for full Free Market these days. Power to the rich, down with the poor people. Must be their fault right? Anyway, several welfare nations of Europe have problems sustaining that system because of unemployment, as one of the reasons. In Finland the lower class is bigger than in decades, and upper class is getting richer than ever

I've come to see Planned as serving three or four purposes:
- a very short preliminary state to FM...

Marx would turn over in his grave


And yes, the game itself?

Keep debating while were talking of history, politics and definition.

[Avenoct]

Sounds to me like at least ye Finns think of Socialism as a sort of proto-communism. I always thought of them as pretty separate, but I think I've been incorrect in my use of the word. When you say 'members of the Socialist Block' I would have said 'Communist Block' to distinguish between a sort of mass-community-totalitarian-egalitarian government system with no tolerances really, for other systems, and modern socialism, which I suppose would have Engles turning in his grave too. Welfare states...ugh. But I suppose it's the condition of the people to take advantage of a socialist state. Thanks for the clarification Ethemind.

-Smack

[Misotu]

Originally posted by Basil
I don't like the way FM is so much better than Planned in peacetime. Combined with the advantages of Democracy for builders, this means that Democracy/FM is clearly (IMHO ) the best peacetime SE choice for 10 of the factions through most of the game, which is, IMHO, boring. So one of my goals in my variants is to balance this a bit. Easier said than done.

Yes, I know what you mean. But the thing about FM is that it is insidiously addictive. If you don't switch out into Planned for periods, you'll be mashed in MP or an SP compare game by someone who does. FM produces amazing amounts of energy, but little growth - running Planned for just around dozen turns can double the size of all your bases, radically changing the picture when you switch back into FM.

Alternatively, once the infrastructure and pop are in, you'll get mashed by someone running Demo/Green/Knowledge because with that kind of efficiency you can run a serious research setting to grab the Ascent ...

I'm not sure it's quite that straightforward?

[Basil]

Originally posted by Misotu

Yes, I know what you mean. But the thing about FM is that it is insidiously addictive. If you don't switch out into Planned for periods, you'll be mashed in MP or an SP compare game by someone who does. FM produces amazing amounts of energy, but little growth - running Planned for just around dozen turns can double the size of all your bases, radically changing the picture when you switch back into FM.

I thought you could get that growth through a FM Golden Age? Or is that not good enough, in MP? (I know it's good enough in SP, but of course that doesn't mean anything. Though if it's not, Morgan's up the creek as a MP choice... which wouldn't surprise me.)

Originally posted by Misotu

Alternatively, once the infrastructure and pop are in, you'll get mashed by someone running Demo/Green/Knowledge because with that kind of efficiency you can run a serious research setting to grab the Ascent ...

Ah... I think I see what you mean... there comes a point where you've built everything you'll need, so you just run for research with minimal money? It's interesting to see that the game can develop that way - all the games I've been in have been decided before that point .

[Misotu]

I thought you could get that growth through a FM Golden Age? Or is that not good enough, in MP?

Well, you know how the game goes. I've found that sometimes GA growth is fine, sometimes not. It depends on the combination of circumstances - PKs with two (preferably more) good pacts, mostly coastal bases and good energy focus should be able to do it if the map is smallish so numbers of bases are limited, giving fewer, well-developed bases which can reach GA more easily.

Like you, I often go into FM very early - pretty much as soon as I have the tech and the 40 credits for the switch. I'm playing one game at the moment where I'm paying the price for taking the FM approach Lovely results early on, but now I'm waaay behind on pop, tech, you name it ...

You're right, Morgan is a tough MP choice unless you can team up.

Ah... I think I see what you mean... there comes a point where you've built everything you'll need, so you just run for research with minimal money? It's interesting to see that the game can develop that way - all the games I've been in have been decided before that point .

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant - I'm thinking 10-0-90 or even 0-0-100. This is where Green really makes sense! I've seen this (and used it myself) many times in MP - and not so late in the game, either. The games I'm thinking of were over by 2175-2200. I've mostly seen it on the tourny map, which is four islands and tends to encourage more of a builder approach since the rover rush is hard to do. Alternatively, I've also used it for short bursts just to hit that one key tech I desperately need - maybe Fusion, or (ahem) the tech for orbital defence pods

I'm not really disagreeing with you - especially not for SP where you can obviously get away with a lot more and it's tempting to just sit back in FM and watch the cash roll in - but I have found in MP that I switch SE settings quite a lot.

[Ned]

Now here's an interesting setting for Planned. Demo, Planned, Power, Eudaimonia. Demo cancels Planned's inefficiency. Power cancels Eudaimonia's negative morale. You get +2 econ and +3 industry, +5 with Domai. A really powerful combination. Ned

[EtheMind]

Sounds to me like at least ye Finns think of Socialism as a sort of proto-communism. I always thought of them as pretty separate

In a classic theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin. The socialism was a phase before the final stage, the Communism. But when talking of politics. Communism and Socialism are often too distinct consepts.

But the thing about FM is that it is insidiously addictive.

It is. Just look at that Science/Economy boost and your soul is lost to the wealth forever. It brings some serious drawbacks, which is a good thing. But they can be overcome. When I started playing SMAC, I never used FM, or even thought of that. But now, it's one of my most usual SE choices.
The idea of playing Planned and FM after one another in order to periodically boost Growth is interesting strategy. There's no character behind that one though, I mean, Ideology.

Lovely results early on, but now I'm waaay behind on pop, tech, you name it ...

I've experienced the exactly same phenomenon with FM, and very often. Sure I'm wealthy and my Economy and Science are boosting, but it isn't enough. I've had games in Trancendi where I've got every single project. My selections always were Democracy/Green/Knowledge/usually Eudaimonic. And everything went so damn well! But I always have some problems with FM, it gives you great overall wealth but I feel that it isn't in any way superior system to Green. In fact, when I used to play Planned, I got just as many(or more) projects when I'm playing with FM. I don't think the choice is very self evident at all taking the native warfare and industry/growth in consideration.

Nice Ned. Works only with small empires though, but within them...a good overall strategy, I'm sure.